Division -iu^  C^^  vl)  tl) 

Section    «   Cb  •  A^*^    { 


No,, 


THE  FOUR  GOSPELS 

FROM  A  LAWYER'S 
STANDPOINT 


BY 


EDMUND  H.  BENNETT,  LL.D. 


BOSTON  AKD  NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN  AND  COMPANY 

1899 


COPYRIGHT,    1899,   BY  SALLY  C.   BENNETT 
ALL  RIGHTS  RESERVED 


NOTE 

'HE  substance  of  the  following 
pages  was  prepared  by  the  au- 
thor, largely  as  a  matter  of 
personal  interest  to  himself.  Fi- 
nally he  based  a  lecture  or  address  upon 
the  material  which  he  had  collected.  This 
lecture  he  delivered  many  times,  especially 
during  the  latter  years  of  his  life.  As  an 
introduction  he  sometimes  used  the  pre- 
fatory matter  which  is  now  printed  with 
the  address.  The  author  never  himself 
prepared  a  copy  for  publication.  Had  he 
done  so,  possibly  he  might  have  revised  its 
form  somewhat.  It  is  now  printed  sub- 
stantially in  the  form  in  which  he  delivered 
it  the  last  time. 
Boston,  October,  1899. 


INTRODUCTION 

HRISTIAN  friends  from  differ- 
ent churches  and  of  many  de- 
nominations, may  I  say  a  word 
or  two,  before  commencing  my 
address,  on  the  subject  of  Christian  unity? 
I  say  denominations  intentionally,  for  I  dis- 
like to  hear  the  words  "  sects  "  and  "  sec- 
tarians "  applied  to  Christian  brethren. 

I  am  glad  to  have  this  opportunity  to  ex- 
press my  sympathy  for,  and  my  belief  in, 
the  plan  of  occasional  union  services  in 
which  we  can  all  unite  in  one  common 
service  of  praise  and  devotion,  I  doubt 
whether  any  more  serious  obstacle  exists 
to  the  spread  of  Christianity,  either  at  home 
or  abroad,  than  the  unhappy  divisions  and 
discords  which  have  sometimes  existed  be- 
tween different  Christian  bodies.  It  is  time, 
in  my  opinion,  to  remember  that  here,  as 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

elsewhere,  union  is  strength.  The  most  suc- 
cessful army  must  have  several  divisions,  — 
infantry,  cavalry,  and  artillerymen ;  but  they 
are  too  world-wise  to  expect  success  by 
firing  on  each  other,  as  they  stand  facing 
a  common  and  united  foe.  So  in  the  Chris- 
tian army.  There  may  be  many  cohorts, 
but  there  can  be  but  one  "  captain  of  our 
salvation ; "  and  there  should  be  but  one 
banner  over  us,  and  that  is  the  banner — 
the  blood-stained  banner  —  of  the  Cross. 

Minor  differences  there  may  be  and  per- 
haps always  will  be  in  some  points,  espe- 
cially in  modes  of  worship  and  church  orga- 
nization, for  there  is  no  divinely  appointed 
order  of  church  worship.  "  There  may  be 
differences  of  administration,  but  it  is  the 
same  Lord ;  there  may  be  diversities  of 
operation,  but  it  is  the  same  God  which 
worketh  all  in  all."  Some  prefer  a  simple, 
others  a  more  ornate  form  of  public  wor- 
ship ;  some  assemble  within  plain,  others 
within  decorated  walls.  But  whether  the 
church  windows  be  plain  or  colored,  open 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

both,  and  you  look  out  upon  the  same  world 
of  sin,  sorrow,  and  suffering,  crying  for  our 
sympathy  and  aid.  Whether  the  roof  be 
plain  or  groined,  raise  up  either  and  look 
aloft ;  behold  the  same  heavenly  expanse  of 
blue,  with  the  same  stars  of  hope  beaming 
from  its  azure  depths,  or  the  same  sun  of 
righteousness  arising  with  healing  in  his 
wings. 

The  choir  may  be  a  quartette,  or  vested, 
but  from  both  the  same  songs  of  praise 
and  devotion  constantly  ascend  to  the  same 
Majesty  on  high.  And  these  come  from 
Christian  authors  of  every  name  and  every 
denomination. 

You  remember  it  was  a  Congregational 
minister  who  penned  that  devout  hymn :  — 

"  I  love  thy  Kingdom,  Lord, 
The  house  of  thine  abode." 

The  Cary  sisters  of  the  Universalist 
fold  have  given  us  many  devotional  hymns, 
not  the  least  popular  of  which  is  — 

"  One  sweetly  solemn  thought 
Comes  to  me  o'er  and  o'er." 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

The  Baptist  author  of  "  My  country,  't  is 
of  thee  I  sing,"  also  wrote  — 

"  The  morning  light  is  breaking, 
The  darkness  disappears." 

A  Presbyterian  taught  us  to  — 

"  Stand  up,  stand  up  for  Jesus, 
Ye  soldiers  of  the  Cross." 

While  we  are  indebted  to  that  sweet 
Methodist  singer,  Charles  Wesley,  for  — 

"  Hark,  the  herald  angels  sing," 
"  Soldiers  of  Christ,  arise," 
"  Jesus,  lover  of  my  soul, 
Let  me  to  thy  bosom  fly," 

and  many,  many  others. 

You  know  it  was  a  Unitarian  lady  who 
breathed  those  saintly  lines,  sung  in  every 
church  and  every  hamlet  in  the  land  :  — 

"Nearer,  my  God,  to  Thee,  nearer  to  Thee." 

Another  member  of  the  same  com- 
munion, a  layman,  too,  if  I  mistake  not, 
declared  that  — 

"In  the  cross  of  Christ  I  glory, 

Towering  o'er  the  wrecks  of  time  ; 
All  the  light  of  Gospel  story 

Gathers  round  its  head  sublime." 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

May  I  be  permitted  to  remind  you  that 
Episcopal  lips  first  uttered  those  touching 
words :  — 

"Lead,  Kindly  Light,  amid  the  encircling  gloom," 
"  Abide  with  me ;  fast  falls  the  even  tide," 

and  — 

"  Rock  of  ages,  cleft  for  me," 

probably  one  of  the  most  popular  hymns  in 
our  language. 

Nay,  it  is  only  just  for  us  to  acknowledge 
that  a  pious  and  devout  Roman  Catholic 
gave  us  that  gem  of  devotional  poetry  :  — 

"  O  Paradise,  O  Paradise, 
Who  doth  not  crave  for  rest," 

and  its  twin  sister,  — 

"  Jerusalem,  the  Golden, 
With  milk  and  honey  blest." 

It  was  a  Roman  Catholic  lady,  who  more 
than  three  hundred  years  ago,  on  her 
bended  knees,  in  her  solitary  cell,  poured 
forth  the  anguish  of  her  soul  in  this  piercing 
cry  :  — 

"  O  Domine  Deus,  speravi  in  Te, 
O  care  mi  Jesu  nunc  libera  me, 
Languendo,  gemendo  et  genuflectendo 
Adoro  imploro  ut  liberas  me." 


X  INTRODUCTION 

All  which  proves  that  the  truth  is  —  the 
simple  truth  is  —  that  notwithstanding  a 
difference  in  name  and  outward  dress,  the 
hearts  of  all  true  Christian  men  and  Chris- 
tian women  beat  in  unison.     Verily, 

"  As  in  water  face  answereth  to  face 
So  the  heart  of  man  to  man." 

However  the  external  form  of  theological 
heads  may  differ,  the  shape  of  the  human 
heart,  the  sound,  healthy,  human  heart,  is 
ever  the  same ;  and  we  are  told  that  it  is 
with  the  heart,  and  not  with  the  head,  that 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness. 

This  unity  of  heart  and  feeling,  I  am  glad 
to  see,  is  manifesting  itself  now  as  never 
before  in  the  many  union  services  now  be- 
ing held  throughout  the  land.  In  Lexing- 
ton, Newton,  Winchester,  Boston,  Bridge- 
water,  Taunton,  and  many  other  places, 
such  a  movement  has  been  attended  with 
great  success.  The  present  attitude  of 
Christian  bodies  towards  each  other  is  very 
different  from  that  formerly  prevailing. 
Such  a  meeting  as  this  would  have  been 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

impossible,  I  fear,  fifty  years  ago.  The 
omens  are  auspicious  of  even  closer  affilia- 
tion between  Christians  of  different  de- 
nominations. The  Spirit  of  God  is  moving 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters.  Quench  not 
the  Spirit !  The  Gospel  trumpet  calls. 
Heed  its  summons  !  Some  great  transi- 
tion is  upon  us.  Yes,  the  morning  light  is 
breaking,  the  day  is  nigh  at  hand.  I  hope 
to  see  the  time  when  the  ministers  of  my 
own  church  shall  be  canonically  permitted 
to  open  their  pulpits  to  their  brethren  of 
other  denominations.     God  speed  the  day  ! 


CONTENTS 


THE  FOUR  GOSPELS  FROM  A  LAWYER'S  STANDPOINT  I 

I.    PECULIARITIES   OF  EACH   GOSPEL     ....  9 

II.    CONFIRMATIONS   IN  THE  GOSPELS    ....  23 

in.    VARIATIONS   IN   THE   GOSPELS 33 

IV.    INCONSISTENCIES   IN   THE  GOSPELS       ...  39 


THE   FOUR   GOSPELS   FROM   A 
LAWYER'S   STANDPOINT 

[T  is,  as  you  know,  a  part  of  the 
lawyer's  profession  to  examine 
and  cross-examine  witnesses,  to 
detect  their  errors,  and  expose 
their  falsehoods ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
reconcile  their  conflicting  statements,  and 
from  seeming  discord  to  evolve  and  make 
manifest  the  real  truth.  And  this  paper  is 
the  result  of  an  effort,  on  my  own  part,  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not,  independently  of 
divine  revelation,  independently  of  the  exer- 
cise of  a  devout  Christian  faith,  independ- 
ently of  any  appeal  to  our  religious  senti- 
ments, the  truth  of  the  story  told  in  the  four 
Gospels  could  be  satisfactorily  established 
by  a  mere  reasoning  process,  and  by  apply- 
ing the  same  principles  and  the  same  tests 
to  the  Gospel  narratives  that  we  observe  in 


2  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

determining  the  truth  or  falsity  of  any  other 
documents,  or  any  other  historical  accounts. 
While  we  claim  no  special  favors  in  our 
investigations  because  of  any  alleged  impor- 
tance of  the  subject,  it  is  only  fair  to  expect 
that  every  one  will  come  to  this  examina- 
tion with  an  unbiased  and  unprejudiced 
mind,  ready  and  willing  to  accept  the  same 
evidence  of  truth  and  honesty  as  in  other 
inquiries.  Moreover,  since  we  decide  many 
important  worldly  matters  upon  the  mere 
preponderance  of  evidence  and  arguments, 
why  should  we  not  adopt  the  same  princi- 
ples here  ?  It  is  not  necessary  in  order  to 
recommend  the  Gospel  story  for  our  adop- 
tion to  insist  that  it  be  proved  to  a  mathe- 
matical demonstration,  and  beyond  the  cavils 
of  every  doubter,  or  of  every  unreasonable 
skeptic.  Why  not  adopt  that  conclusion 
which  has  the  higher  degree  of  probability 
rather  than  the  opposite  }  If  we  choose 
neither,  we  practically  reject  both.  In  sec- 
ular matters,  if  seventy-five  per  cent,  of 
everything  that  can  be  said  on  both  sides 


THE    FOUR   GOSPELS  3 

of  any  subject  leads  to  one  result,  we  are 
generally  ready  to  adopt  that  conclusion  in 
preference  to  the  other.  It  is,  you  know, 
not  uncommon  before  deciding  some  impor- 
tant worldly  matter  to  arrange  the  argu- 
ments pro  and  con  in  parallel  columns,  and 
thus  be  guided  by  their  comparative  weight 
to  our  final  conclusion.  Let  us  do  so  here. 
I  approach  this  subject,  therefore,  with 
a  personal  reminiscence.  A  few  years  ago, 
while  writing  an  historical  address  for  one 
of  our  Massachusetts  cities,  I  came  across, 
in  a  newspaper  file  of  the  Revolutionary 
period,  a  letter,  or  what  purported  to  be  a 
letter,  written  from  that  place,  giving  an  ac- 
count of  a  meeting  held  there,  in  1774,  and 
a  copy  of  some  patriotic  resolutions  passed 
thereat.  The  writer  of  that  letter,  if  there 
ever  was  one,  had  long  been  dead ;  all  the 
persons  said  to  have  taken  part  in  that 
meeting  were  also  gone ;  the  printer  and 
publisher  who  gave  the  account  to  the 
world  had  likewise  vanished  from  the  earth ; 
there  was  no  person  living  who  could  make 


4  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

oath  or  testify  that  such  an  occurrence  ever 
actually  took  place.  But  yet  I  had  no  hesi- 
tation in  adopting  the  account  as  genuine, 
and  using  it  as  an  established  event  in  the 
history  of  that  town.  The  mere  fact  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  document  under  such 
circumstances  was  prima  facie  proof  of  its 
genuineness  and  authenticity,  quite  suffi- 
cient to  justify  the  acceptance  of  it  as  true 
until  the  contrary  be  proved. 

What  would  have  been  my  joy  and  confi- 
dence had  I  found  four  such  letters,  in  four 
different  papers,  written  by  four  different 
persons,  giving  an  account  of  the  same 
transaction  .■'  And  although  in  a  close  com- 
parison of  these  four  accounts  some  varia- 
tions should  have  been  found  as  to  the 
particulars  of  that  event,  would  that  over- 
throw all  belief  in  the  truthfulness  of  the 
accounts }  Nay,  would  it  not  rather  fur- 
nish stronger  proof  of  their  integrity  .-'  Had 
all  four  accounts  been  exactly  alike,  the  sus- 
picion would  have  been  irresistible  that  one 
was  copied  from  the  other,  or  that  all  were 


THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  5 

taken  from  one  and  the  same  original.  But 
substantial  uniformity  with  circumstantial 
variety  is  one  of  the  surest  tests  of  truth 
in  all  historical  narratives.  The  several 
accounts  of  many  important  battles  of  the 
world,  and  of  many  other  historical  events, 
vary  in  many  particulars,  and  yet  no  one 
thereby  has  any  doubt  of  their  occurrence. 
The  four  portraits  of  the  Father  of  his 
country,  painted  by  four  different  artists, 
viz.,  Stuart,  Peale,  Sharpless,  and  Wright, 
though  all  taken  about  the  same  period  of 
his  life,  vary  so  much  in  expression  that  you 
would  scarcely  know  them  to  represent  the 
same  person,  and  yet  the  same  George 
Washington  undoubtedly  sat  for  them  all. 
The  various  editions  of  Gray's  Elegy,  and 
of  some  of  Shakespeare's  plays,  differ  as 
much  as  do  some  chapters  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  in  their  respective  accounts  of  the 
same  transaction.  Indeed,  what  four  of  us 
could  go  away  from  this  meeting,  and  give 
exactly  the  same  account  of  what  transpires 
here  ?  What  four  witnesses  under  oath  in  a 


6  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS 

court  of  justice  ^t/^;' describe  a  transaction 
precisely  alike  ?  And  yet  their  testimony  is 
taken  as  reliable,  in  cases  involving  the  most 
important  interests,  even  of  life  and  death. 
Indeed,  judges  and  juries  are  apt  to  dis- 
credit a  cause  in  which  ail  the  witnesses  tell 
a  long  story  in  exactly  the  same  words. 

Let  us  apply  the  same  principles  to  the 
subject  matter  of  this  address.  The  four 
Gospels  exist ;  they  purport  to  contain  the 
history  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  the  au- 
thors are  not  living ;  the  characters  they 
therein  describe  are  no  more.  No  man  liv- 
ing knows  by  direct  personal  knowledge  that 
these  things  were  ever  so.  But  why  not 
apply  the  same  rules  of  evidence  and  belief 
to  scriptural  narratives  as  to  any  other  .^ 
Being  in  existence,  and  a  minute  account 
of  passing  events,  they  must  be  either  genu- 
ine and  true,  or  else  a  gross  forgery.  There 
is  no  alternative ;  for  the  self-delusion  theory 
is  preposterous.  They  were  true  when  writ- 
ten, or  were  then  an  absolute  falsehood.  If 
the  latter,  they  must  at  that  very  time  have 


THE   FOUR  GOSPELS  7 

been  known  to  be  false,  and  an  imposition 
on  the  credulity  of  those  then  living.  These 
stories  began  to  be  published  not  long  after 
the  alleged  crucifixion.  Many  persons  were 
then  living  who  could  have  easily  refuted 
the  statements  of  the  evangelists  had  they 
been  untrue.  The  enemies  of  Jesus  were 
still  alive  and  active.  The  Scribe  and  the 
Pharisee,  the  Priest  and  the  Levite,  still 
smarted  under  his  repeated  denunciations. 
They  had  the  disposition,  the  opportunity, 
and  the  incentive  to  deny  the  story  of  the 
miraculous  birth,  the  spotless  life,  the  mar- 
velous works,  the  sublime  death,  the  as- 
tounding resurrection,  and  the  glorious 
ascension  of  our  Lord,  had  the  then  pub- 
lished description  of  these  events  been  to- 
tally fabulous.  But  so  far  as  we  know,  no 
person  then  living  ever  uttered  a  protest 
against  these  accounts,  and  for  two  thou- 
sand years  they  have  been  received  and 
treated  as  veritable  history. 

Again,  being  written,  they  must  have 
been  written  by  some  one.  There  they  are  ; 
some  persons  wrote  them  ;  and  they  must 


8  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

have  been  written  by  either  bad  men  or 
good  men ;  by  Hars  or  by  truth-tellers,  by 
forgers  or  by  honest  historians.  That  is  a 
very  elementary  and  simple  proposition,  but 
it  is  the  key  to  the  whole  situation,  one 
which  I  ask  you  to  steadily  carry  with  you 
throughout  this  investigation.  Remember 
that  every  circumstance  tending  to  disprove 
forgery  tends  on  the  other  hand  to  prove 
truth  ;  for  they  must  be  one  or  the  other. 

The  question  then  is :  Do  wicked  men 
write  such  books  as  these  ?  Do  liars  pro- 
claim that  they  and  all  other  liars  "  shall 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  that  burneth 
with  fire  and  brimstone  "  ?  Does  the  thief 
denounce  dishonesty,  or  the  adulterer  pro- 
claim uncleanness,  or  Satan  rebuke  sin .? 
If,  then,  these  stories  were  not  penned  by 
wicked  men,  they  must  owe  their  origin  to 
honest  men ;  and  if  honest  and  truthful 
men  wrote  them,  they  must  be  honest  and 
true  narratives,  and  not  a  tissue  of  false- 
hoods. Is  not  the  conclusion  irresistible  ? 
Need  we  go  farther.?  But  let  us  look  at 
the  subject  from  four  other  standpoints. 


I.     PECULIARITIES    OF    EACH 
GOSPEL 

>SIDE  from  the  general  consid- 
erations above  alluded  to,  each 
Gospel  itself  contains  internal 
and  indirect,  but  cogent  evi- 
dence of  its  own  genuineness.  I  purposely 
omit  all  reference  to  the  manifold  external 
proofs  of  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels, 
the  number  and  force  of  which  increase 
with  every  new  discovery,  and  I  confine 
myself  wholly  to  inherent  and  intrinsic  evi- 
dence thereof.  Some  of  these  illustrations 
I  am  about  to  give  may  be  found  elsewhere, 
and  I  lay  no  claim  to  originality,  for  nothing 
new  or  original  can  now  be  written  on  this 
subject.  To  present  some  old  truths  in  a 
new  setting  is  all  I  can  reasonably  expect 
to  accomplish.  Let  us  look  at  each  Gospel 
separately,  and  see  how  its  naturalness,  its 


lo  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

conformity  to  what  we  should  expect,  its 
harmony  with  the  surroundings,  tends  to 
prove  its  truth. 

St.  Matthew. 

Take  first  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew. 
He,  and  he  alone,  records  the  circumstance 
of  Jesus  paying  tribute  to  the  tax-collector 
of  Capernaum  (xvii,  24-27).  How  do  we 
account  for  this .-'  Why  should  Matthew 
be  more  likely  to  mention  this  particular 
fact  than  any  other  evangelist }  When  we 
remember  that  he  was  himself  a  tax-gath- 
erer, and  therefore  especially  interested  in 
and  observant  of  anything  relating  to  his 
own  profession,  the  answer  is  obvious.  So 
again,  Matthew  informs  us  (xxvii.  66)  that 
after  Jesus's  burial,  the  Jews  went  and 
"  made  the  sepulchre  sure,  sealing  the  stone 
and  setting  a  watch."  How  does  it  happen 
that  Matthew  alone  mentions  that  fact } 
We  must  remember  that  the  people  of 
Judea,  as  has  been  justly  remarked,  were 
oppressively  taxed  under  the  Roman  domin- 


PECULIARITIES    OF   EACH   GOSPEL     ii 

ion,  and  that  excessive  taxation  often  leads 
to  evasion,  cunning,  and  fraud  by  the  tax- 
payer ;  and  to  increased  vigilance,  caution, 
and  close  scrutiny  on  the  part  of  the  col- 
lector. Accustomed,  therefore,  to  suspect 
fraud  and  evasion,  Matthew  would  naturally 
be  the  most  likely  to  notice  and  record  a 
fact  which  tended  to  show  that  in  so  impor- 
tant event  deception  had  been  carefully 
guarded  against.  Would  a  man  forging  the 
four  Gospels  remember  that  he  must  make 
Matthew  state  these  facts,  and  carefully 
make  all  the  other  historians  omit  them .-' 

Naming  the  Apostles. 

Again,  in  giving  the  names  of  the  twelve 
apostles,  a  natural  incident  occurs  which  I 
regard  as  one  of  the  strongest  proofs  of 
simplicity  and  truth  in  Matthew.  The 
apostles  are  usually  named  in  couples,  thus : 
Simon  and  Andrew,  James  and  John,  etc.  ; 
one  couple  is  described  by  both  Mark  and 
Luke  as  "  Matthew  and  Thomas,"  Mat- 
thew's name  being  first  in  both  stories  ;  but 


12  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

Matthew  himself  (x.  3),  with  the  modesty 
of  an  honest  and  true  man,  says,  "Thomas 
and  Matthew"  putting  Thomas  first  and 
himself  last.  Is  not  this  so  natural  as  to 
be  a  sign  of  truth  ?  But  some  skeptic  may 
say,  "  This  is  only  accidental ;  that  don't 
prove  much  anyway."  Read  a  little  fur- 
ther and  see.  Matthew's  occupation  was 
then,  as  now,  an  unpopular  and  odious 
one,  and  the  other  evangelists  therefore, 
when  speaking  of  Matthew,  make  no  refer- 
ence to  it ;  but  Matthew  himself,  with  true 
humility,  says,  "  Matthew,  the  publican." 
Another  instance  of  this  same  quality  is 
found  in  the  several  accounts  of  Matthew's 
farewell  feast  to  his  former  associates,  when 
he  forsook  all  and  followed  Jesus.  Luke 
(v.  29)  says,  "  Matthew  made  a  great  feast 
in  his  own  house,  and  there  was  a  great 
company  of  publicans  and  of  others  that  sat 
down  with  them."  Mark  (ii.  15)  agrees  in 
this  complimentafy  descriptiojt  of  this  event. 
But  Matthew  himself  modestly  omits  all  re- 
ference to  himself  and  the  magnitude  of  the 


PECULIARITIES    OF   EACH   GOSPEL     13 

feast,  and  simply  says :  "  And  it  came  to 
pass  as  Jesus  sat  at  meat  in  the  house,"  etc. 
(ix.  10),  without  even  saying  it  was  his  own 
house;  much  less  that  he  had  invited  a 
large  company  to  his  banquet.  Is  this  for- 
gery ?  If  not,  it  is  honest  truth.  Falsehood 
is  pretentious,  brazen-faced,  crooked.  Truth 
is  modest,  natural,  artless.  Straws,  are 
they.-*  Do  not  straws  indicate  the  true 
course  of  the  wind  .'' 

St.  Mark. 

Let  us  turn  to  St.  Mark's  Gospel.  Here 
we  constantly  find  explanation  of  Jewish 
terms  and  phrases  which  are  not  found  in 
corresponding  verses  of  Matthew  about  the 
same  event.  Thus  in  chapter  vii.  verse  2, 
Mark  writes  :  "  When  they  saw  his  disci- 
ples eat  bread  with  defiled  hands,"  they 
found  fault  ;  and  then  the  writer  adds  this 
explanation,  "  for  the  Pharisees  and  all  the 
Jews  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat 
not."  Again  in  verse  1 1,  "  If  a  man  shall  say 
to   his  father   or   mother,    It   is  Corban," 


14  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

Mark  adds,  "that  is  to  say,  a  gift."  In 
chapter  ii,  verse  26,  speaking  of  David  eat- 
ing the  shewbread  in  the  days  of  Abiathar, 
he  explains  again,  "  which  is  not  lawful  to 
eat  but  for  the  priests."  In  chapter  v.  verse 
41,  when  he  records  that  Jesus  said  to  the 
maid,  "Talitha  cumi,"  he  adds,  "which  is, 
being  interpreted,  *  Damsel,  I  say  unto  thee, 
arise.'  "  Again,  Mark  writes  (vii.  34),  "Eph- 
phatha,"  and  adds,  "  That  is,  be  opened." 
Why  is  Mark  so  careful  to  explain  all  these 
Jewish  terms  and  phrases  when  Matthew 
is  not  ?  If  we  remember  that  Matthew, 
himself  a  Jew,  was  writing  for  Jews,  who 
understood  such  terms  already,  and  Mark, 
himself  a  Gentile,  was  addressing  Gentiles, 
who  did  not,  we  have  the  answer.  What 
a  skillful  forger  must  he  have  been  to  have 
contrived  all  that ! 

St.  Luke. 

Luke  also  has  many  indirect  proofs  of 
naturalness.  For  instance,  Luke  traces  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus  upwards  to  Adam,  as 


PECULIARITIES   OF   EACH   GOSPEL     15 

the  Gentiles  did,  because  he  was  writing  for 
Gentiles,  while  Matthew,  writing  for  Jews, 
as  we  have  said,  reckons  downwards  from 
Abraham,  as  the  Jews  always  did.  Still 
more :  In  St.  Luke's  descriptions  of  mirac- 
ulous cures,  the  natural  and  genuine  char- 
acter of  his  Gospel  clearly  appears.  Thus, 
while  the  others  simply  speak  of  Christ  as 
"healing  a  leper  "  and  of  curing  a  man  who 
had  "«  withered  hand,"  Luke  says  the  first 
was  ''full  of  leprosy,"  and  it  was  the  right 
hand  of  the  last  which  was  withered. 

Again,  the  others  say  Peter's  wife's  mo- 
ther lay  "sick  of  a  fever,"  but  Luke  writes 
that  she  "was  taken  with  a  great  fever."  In 
the  account  of  the  healing  of  the  centurion's 
servant,  Matthew  simply  says  the  servant 
"was  sick  of  the  palsy,"  but  Luke  with  more 
fullness  records  that  "  he  was  sick  and  ready 
to  die."  So  in  the  healing  of  the  daughter 
of  Jairus,  Matthew  merely  states  that  her 
father  addressed  our  Saviour  thus  :  "  My 
daughter  is  even  now  dead  :  but  come  and 
lay  thy  hand  upon  her,  and  she  shall  live. 


i6  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

And  Jesus  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  the 
maid  arose."  But  Luke,  with  more  minute- 
ness and  tenderness  of  feeling,  tells  us  that 
Jairus  "fell  down  at  Jesus'  feet,  and  be- 
sought him  that  he  would  come  into  his 
house  :  for  he  had  only  one  daughter,  about 
twelve  years  of  age,  and  she  lay  a  dying. 
And  Jesus  took  her  by  the  hand,  and  called, 
saying,  Maid,  arise.  And  her  spirit  came 
again,  and  she  arose  straightway."  And 
again,  while  three  evangelists  mention  that 
Peter  cut  off  the  ear  of  Malchus,  the  servant 
of  the  high  priest,  they  all  stop  there ;  but 
Luke  alone,  with  his  more  acute  observa- 
tion, adds :  "  And  Jesus  touched  his  ear,  and 
healed  him."  So  also  Luke  alone  mentions 
the  compassion  of  the  good  Samaritan  ;  he 
alone  records  the  fact  that  the  sleep  of  the 
disciples  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  was 
induced  by  extreme  sorrow ;  that  Jesus  sweat 
great  drops  of  blood,  etc.  Now  why  this 
more  accurate  observation  and  description 
by  Luke  of  every  circumstance  of  disease  and 
of  mental  and  physical  suffering  than  can 


PECULIARITIES    OF   EACH    GOSPEL     17 

be  found  in  any  other  historian  of  the  same 
events  ?  What  was  there  in  Luke's  history 
or  life  which  qualified  and  induced  him  thus 
to  note  and  describe  all  kinds  of  diseases  so 
much  more  minutely  than  the  others  ?  Turn 
to  Colossians  (iv.  14),  and  you  have  the  an- 
swer, where  Paul,  writing  to  the  Colossians, 
closes  his  letter  thus  :  "  Luke,  the  beloved 
physician,  and  Demas  greet  you."  Did  the 
forger  of  Luke's  Gospel  conspire  with  the 
forger  of  Paul's  Epistle,  the  one  to  put 
into  Luke's  mouth  words  which  a  physician 
would  naturally  utter,  but  without  intimat- 
ing that  he  was  a  physician,  and  the  other 
to  simply  call  him  a  physician,  without  giv- 
ing any  circumstances  indicating  it  ?  For- 
gers do  not  rest  content  with  such  round- 
about confirmations.  On  the  other  hand, 
truth-tellers  do  not  trouble  themselves  to 
make  their  stories  corroborate  each  other. 
But  these  are  either  forgeries  or  true  tales. 
So  much  for  Luke. 


l8  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

St.  Johns  Gospel 
also  contains  internal  proof  of  honesty  and 
genuineness.  Thus  in  chapter  vi.  verse  66, 
soon  after  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and 
fishes,  we  read  that  "from  that  time  many 
of  his  disciples  went  back  and  walked  no 
more  with  him,"  and  again  in  chapter  vii. 
verse  5,  that  "neither  did  his  brethren  be- 
lieve on  him."  What  an  admission  for  a 
writer  to  make  if  he  were  concocting  a  stu- 
pendous fraud  to  impose  upon  the  commu- 
nity, viz.,  to  openly  proclaim  to  the  world 
that  the  impostor,  whose  pretensions  he  was 
undertaking  to  bolster  up,  could  not  retain 
the  confidence  of  those  who  were  in  daily 
personal  contact  with  him !  And  this  from 
a  man  who  was  not  his  enemy,  but  his  first 
chosen  disciple  and  his  most  devoted  ad- 
mirer !  Candor  might  lead  a  truthful  his- 
torian to  make  such  an  admission,  but  no- 
thing would  induce  a  fraudulent  one  to  do 
so. 

But  still  another  striking  characteristic 


PECULIARITIES   OF   EACH    GOSPEL     19 

of  genuineness  is  found  in  John's  Gospel. 
He  omits  all  reference  to  many  events 
which  the  other  evangelists  record  in  full. 
Thus,  he  makes  no  allusion  to  the  tempta- 
tion of  Jesus  by  the  Devil ;  to  the  first 
miraculous  draft  of  fishes  ;  to  the  healing 
of  Peter's  wife's  mother,  or  the  recovery 
of  the  leper  ;  to  the  cure  of  the  paralytic, 
or  of  the  withered  hand,  or  of  the  two  de- 
moniacs ;  to  the  parable  of  the  sower ;  to 
the  stilling  of  the  tempest,  or  the  feast  of 
Levi  to  our  Lord ;  to  the  prophecy  of  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  or  the  parable  of 
the  fig-tree ;  to  the  transfiguration  on  the 
mount,  or  to  many  other  important  events,  to 
some  of  which  he  was  even  an  eye-witness. 
Why  is  this  notable  omission  by  John  of  so 
many  scenes  with  which  he  was  perfectly 
familiar  and  which  the  other  three  evangel- 
ists record  so  fully  ?  If  it  be  the  fact  that 
John's  Gospel  was  written  long  after  the 
other  three  had  been  published  to  the  world, 
as  is  generally  believed,  does  not  that  natu- 
rally suggest  that  he  probably  thought  it 


20  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

unnecessary  to  repeat  what  they  had  already 
described  so  minutely  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  John  alone  mentions 
many  interesting  and  touching  incidents  in 
our  Saviour's  life,  about  which  all  the  others 
are  entirely  silent.  Thus,  he  alone  narrates 
the  story  of  John  the  Baptist  at  the  time 
the  Jews  sent  the  Priests  and  Levites  to 
interrogate  him  ;  he  alone  describes  the 
calling  of  Andrew  and  Simon,  Philip  and 
Nathaniel ;  he  alone  records  the  marriage 
in  Cana  of  Galilee ;  the  driving  of  the 
money-changers  from  the  temple ;  the  visit 
of  Nicodemus  by  night ;  the  meeting  with 
the  Samaritan  woman  at  Jacob's  well ;  the 
healing  of  the  nobleman's  son  ;  the  scene 
at  the  pool  of  Bethesda ;  the  parable  of  the 
good  shepherd ;  the  restoring  of  sight  to 
the  blind  in  the  pool  of  Siloam  ;  the  raising 
of  Lazarus,  etc.  In  John  alone  do  we  read 
that  sweetly  tender  address  of  Jesus  to  his 
disciples,  which  has  since  soothed  many  a 
sorrowing  breast,  "  Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled :  ...  in  my  father's  house  are  many 


PECULIARITIES  OF   EACH   GOSPEL    21 

mansions"  (xiv,  i).  Why  does  John  record 
so  many  touching  and  tender  events  in  our 
Lord's  life  of  which  others  make  no  men- 
tion ?  Do  we  not  find  the  explanation  in 
the  fact  that  he  was  the  disciple  whom 
Jesus  preeminently  loved  ;  that  he  enjoyed 
in  a  special  degree  his  Master's  regard  and 
confidence,  resting  his  head  so  often  on  his 
Master's  bosom ;  that  his  mother  was  one 
of  those  who  constantly  followed  Jesus  and 
ministered  unto  him ;  that  of  the  four 
evangelists  he  alone  was  present  at  the 
transfiguration  on  the  mount  and  at  the 
agony  in  Gethsemane  ;  that  he  alone  fol- 
lowed Jesus  to  the  cross,  and  was  present 
at  so  many  other  affecting  scenes  to  which 
the  rest  were  not  admitted  ? 

Could  we  have  more  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  probability  and  truthfulness  than 
these  several  peculiarities  in  the  four  evan- 
gelists indicate  ?  What  a  consummate 
forger  must  he  have  been  who  could  know 
and  constantly  remember  all  these  particu- 
lars and  never  make  a  slip  in  his  fabrica- 


22  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

tions  !  The  forger  of  the  letters  falsely 
attributed  to  Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  or  of 
the  famous  Parnellite  letters  some  years 
ago,  could  not  compare  in  ingenuity  with 
a  possible  forger  of  the  four  evangelists. 
May  we  not  believe,  therefore,  that  each 
Gospel  by  its  own  internal  peculiarities 
bears  testimony  to  its  truth  and  reality  ? 


11.  CONFIRMATIONS    IN   THE    ■ 
GOSPELS 

[Y  comparing  the  various  Gospels 
with  each  other,  we  often  find 
confirmations  of  their  truth  and 
veracity. 

A  notable  instance  exists  in  regard  to 
Herod's  Servants. 

In  Matthew  (xiv.  i,  2)  and  Luke  (ix.  9)  we 
read  that  when  Herod  the  tetrarch  heard  of 
the  fame  of  Jesus,  being  perplexed  thereat, 
he  said  unto  his  servants  inquiringly,  "  This 
is  John  the  Baptist ;  he  is  risen  from  the 
dead,"  "John  have  I  beheaded,  but  who  is 
this  of  whom  I  hear  such  things  .■*  "  The 
inquiry  at  once  arises,  why  did  Herod  ad- 
dress this  question  to  his  servants  ?  What 
could  they  be  supposed  to  know  or  care 
about  Jesus,  or  about  John  the  Baptist } 
Matthew  gives  no  reason  why,  but  on  turn- 


24  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

ing  to  Luke  (viii.  3)  we  learn  that  one  of 
the  followers  of  Jesus  was  Joanna,  the  wife 
of  Herod's  steward.  And  in  Acts  (xiii.  i) 
we  are  told  that  in  the  church  at  Antioch 
there  was  a  teacher  named  Manaen,  "  who 
had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  te- 
trarch."  No  doubt,  therefore,  Herod  sup- 
posed that  the  higher  grade  of  his  servants 
could  give  him  some  information  about 
Jesus  which  he  wanted  to  know,  and  it  was 
not  strange,  therefore,  that  he  should  ad- 
dress them  as  he  did. 

The  Transfiguration  on  the  Mount. 

Again,  after  the  transfiguration  on  the 
mount,  Luke  says  (ix.  36)  that  they  who 
had  witnessed  this  remarkable  event  "  kept 
it  close,  and  told  no  man  in  those  days  any 
of  those  things  which  they  had  seen."  But 
he  gives  no  reason  for  this  extraordinary 
silence  on  a  subject  so  full  of  interest  and 
wonder,  and  which  the  witnesses  thereto 
would  naturally  be  inclined  to  spread  abroad. 
But   turn  to  Mark,  and  you  will  find  the 


CONFIRMATIONS    IN   THE  GOSPELS     25 

explanation  (ix.  9),  where  he  records  that 
as  "  they  came  down  from  the  mountain 
Jesus  charged  them  they  should  tell  no 
man  what  things  they  had  seen,"  etc.  One 
narrates  the  command,  but  not  the  obedi- 
ence ;  the  other  the  obedience,  but  not  the 
command.  Is  that  a  contrived  variation, 
or  is  it  the  natural  and  accidental  difference 
into    which    honest    witnesses    constantly 

fall  ? 

TJie  Passover. 

Once  more :  When  Mark  tells  us  (vi.  31), 
that  after  the  death  of  John  the  Baptist, 
Jesus  said  unto  his  disciples,  "  Come  ye 
yourselves  apart  into  a  desert  place  and 
rest  awhile,"  the  writer  adds,  "  for  there 
were  many  coming  and  going,"  without  giv- 
ing any  intimation  of  the  reason  why  so 
many  should  be  abroad  at  that  particular 
time  ;  but  on  turning  to  John  (vi,  4)  the 
missing  link  appears,  for  we  learn  that  "  the 
passover  was  nigh  "  at  hand,  and  thus  the 
cause  of  the  traveling  multitude  is  obvious, 
viz.,  they  were  all  going  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  the  feast. 


26  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

The  Samaritans^  Disregard  of  Jesus. 

Still  again  :  In  Luke  (ix.  51,  53)  we  are 
told  that  Jesus  on  one  of  his  journeys  to 
Jerusalem  sent  messengers  before  him  to 
a  village  of  the  Samaritans,  to  make  ready 
for  his  coming  ;  but  the  Samaritans  would 
not  receive  him,  "  because,"  to  use  the 
Scripture  language,  "  becatise  his  face  was 
as  though  he  would  go  to  Jenisalemr 
Why  should  that  be  a  reason  for  not  re- 
ceiving him  ?  What  difference  could  it 
make  to  them  whether  he  was  going  to 
Jerusalem  or  to  some  other  city?  Luke 
does  not  tell  us  why,  nor  does  he  give  us 
the  slightest  clue  on  the  subject,  but  we 
learn  it  elsewhere.  It  is  this  :  the  Samar- 
itans did  not  believe  in  Jerusalem  as  a  place 
of  worship  :  they  had  set  up  a  temple  in 
Gerizim  in  opposition  to  the  holy  city.  As 
Jesus  was  known  to  be  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem to  worship  there,  it  was  only  poor 
human  nature  that  the  Samaritans  did  not 
feel  like  paying  him  any  particular  atten- 
tion when  on  such  a  journey. 


CONFIRMATIONS    IN   THE  GOSPELS     27 

The  Denial  by  Peter. 

In  the  denial  by  Peter  a  notable  indirect 
confirmation  or  proof  of  veracity  occurs. 
Thus,  three  of  the  evangelists  say  that 
when  Peter  was  warming  himself  in  the 
palace  of  the  high  priest,  a  maid  saw  him, 
and  charged  him  with  being  a  disciple  of 
Jesus,  but  neither  of  the  three  intimate  how 
she  knew  it  to  be  so.  How  sJiotild  a  maid 
servant  in  the  family  of  the  high  priest, 
the  most  exalted  officer  in  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue, know  such  a  fact  .-•  Proud  of  her 
position  in  the  first  family  in  town,  wearing 
the  brightest  and  gayest  dress  of  all  her 
set,  what  should  that  dark-haired  and  dark- 
eyed  Jewish  maiden  know  or  care  about 
the  lowly  and  despised  Nazarene ;  much 
less  as  to  who  his  deluded  followers  were } 
Turn  to  John  (xviii.  17),  and  the  mystery 
is  solved.  There  we  learn  that  the  maid 
who  thus  addressed  Peter  was  the  very  one 
who  kept  the  door  of  the  palace  through 
which  Peter  had  just  entered.    But  how  did 


28  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

that  enable  her  to  know  that  Peter  was  a 
follower  of  Jesus  ?  Read  John  again  (xviii. 
15,  16),  and  we  find  that  John  first  went 
into  the  palace  with  Jesus,  leaving  Peter 
standing  outside,  and  then  John  came  out, 
and  as  he  was  going  out,  "  spake  to  her  that 
kept  the  door,  and  brought  in  Peter,"  right 
past  her.  She  saw  John  come  in  with  Je- 
sus, and  then  go  out  and  bring  in  Peter,  and 
remembering  what  he  had  said  to  her  going 
out,  she  was  not  a  very  bright  girl  unless 
she  could  put  this  and  that  together,  and 
guess  pretty  well  what  was  going  on.  And 
this  incident  furnishes  another  corrobora- 
tion of  one  evangelist  by  the  others.  John 
speaks  of  only  one  maid  who  thus  addressed 
Peter.  Others  say  there  were  two,  while 
Luke  says  it  was  a  man.  But  John  himself 
further  on  indirectly  confirms  the  other 
three  because  he  says,  in  verse  25,  that  as 
Simon  Peter  stood  and  warmed  himself, 
"  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Art  not 
thou  one  of  his  disciples  ? " 


CONFIRMATIONS    IN  THE  GOSPELS     29 

Smiting  of  Jesus. 

Again,  in  the  last  tragic  scene  of  our 
Saviour's  life,  Matthew  tells  us  (xxvi.  ^J,  6%), 
that  his  murderers,  after  spitting  in  his  face 
and  smiting  him  with  the  palms  of  their 
hands,  challenged  him  to  say  who  smote 
him,  as  if  that  were  an  impossible  question 
for  him  to  answer.  How  could  such  a  ques- 
tion be  difficult  ?  Could  he  not  see  who 
struck  him,  and  in  the  face,  too  ?  Matthew 
gives  no  fact  throwing  light  upon  it,  and 
none  is  there  apparent.  You  could  not 
understand  it  from  Matthew  alone.  But 
turn  to  Luke,  and  the  reason  for  such  a 
question  is  obvious,  for  Luke  says  (xxii.  64), 
"When  they  had  blindfolded  him,  they 
struck  him  on  the  face,  and  asked  him,  say- 
ing, Prophesy,  who  is  it  that  smote  thee  .-* " 
Thus  we  see  the  force  and  significance  of 
the  question,  addressed  to  a  blindfolded 
man,  which  to  another  would  have  been 
too  simple. 


30  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

The  Bearer  of  the  Cross. 

Matthew  and  Luke  say  that  at  the  cruci- 
fixion of  Jesus  his  cross  was  borne  by  one 
Simon,  a  Cyrenian,  but  they  give  no  other 
particulars  about  him.  Mark  alone  adds  that 
Simon  was  the  father  of  Alexander  and  Ru- 
f  us.  Why }  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  at  Rome 
for  Romans.  But  what  had  that  to  do  with 
it }  Turn  to  Romans  xvi.  1 3,  and  we  find 
that  Rufus  was  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  and 
lived  in  Rome.  How  natural,  therefore, 
that  Mark,  when  writing  to  Romans,  should 
specially  refer  to  Rufus,  who  was  then  living 
among  them,  and  whose  father  had  been  so 
closely  connected  with  the  awful  tragedy 
of  the  crucifixion.  And  how  natural  that 
first  the  pity  and  then  the  love  of  Rufus 
should  have  been  excited  for  Jesus  by  the 
fact  that  his  father  had  borne  the  cross,  and 
was  an  eye-witness  to  the  awful  sufferings 
thereon,  the  account  of  which  no  doubt  he 
had  often  heard  from  his  father's  lips. 


CONFIRMATIONS    IN   THE  GOSPELS     31 

Division  of  the  Garments. 

One  more  instance  of  confirmation  re- 
mains. The  division  of  the  garments  of 
Jesus  after  the  crucifixion  furnishes  a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  truth  of  the  Gos- 
pel narrative  as  confirmed  by  other  sources. 

John  informs  us  (xLx.  23)  that  when  the 
soldiers  had  crucified  Jesus,  they  took  his 
garments,  "  and  made  four  parts,  to  every 
soldier  a  part."  How  is  this  ?  Why  just 
four  parts }  Were  there  no  more  soldiers 
there,  on  such  an  extraordinary  occasion  as 
that }  Yes,  they  had  "  the  whole  band  " 
(Matthew  xxvii.  27 ;  Mark  xv.  16).  And 
a  centurion's  band  is  an  hundred.  Why 
were  only  four  entitled  to  his  garments .-' 
This  is  the  explanation.  Crucifixion  as  a 
mode  of  punishment  was  well  known  to 
many  ancient  nations.  The  common  and 
familiar  practice  was  to  compel  the  person 
to  bear  his  cross  to  the  place  of  crucifixion, 
and  to  lay  the  cross  upon  the  ground,  one 
end  slightly  raised  ;  then  the  victim  was  laid 


32  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

upon  it,  with  his  arms  and  limbs  extended, 
and  four  of  the  most  brutal  soldiers  were 
selected  to  drive  four  large  nails,  or  spikes, 
through  the  quivering  flesh  of  his  hands 
and  feet,  for  which  repulsive  service  they 
were  entitled  by  custom  to  his  clothes  as  a 
special  perquisite.  So  John  told  the  truth, 
—  "  four  parts,  to  every  soldier  a  part." 

So   much  for  confirmations  by  compari- 
son. 


in.  VARIATIONS  IN  THE  GOSPELS 

,OME  well-disposed  persons,  for 
the  most  part  of  the  rather 
feeble-minded  sort,  are  much 
troubled  at  the  variations  in  the 
Gospel  stories  about  the  same  event,  and 
find  many  stumbling-blocks  in  their  way. 

Let  us  look  at  some  of  the  events  re- 
corded in  different  words  by  the  various 
evangelists,  and  we  shall  realize  what  is 
meant  by  the  phrase  "Harmony  of  the 
Gospels,"  and  that  mere  variations  are  not 
contradictions,  but  on  the  other  hand  often 
real  confirmations  of  each  other.  Take, 
for  example,  the  imprisonment  of  John 
Baptist  by  Herod,  Matthew  tells  us  (xiv. 
3,  4)  that  Herod  had  laid  hold  on  John  and 
put  him  in  prison  for  the  sake  of  Herodias, 
his  brother  Philip's  wife,  because  John  had 


34  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

told  Herod  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  him 
to  have  her,  but  Matthew  nowhere  intimates 
that  they  were  already  married.  Mark 
alone  (vi.  17)  informs  us  that  the  marriage 
had  actually  taken  place.  Luke  adds  yet 
another  reason  for  John's  imprisonment, 
viz.,  because  he  had  reproved  Herod,  not 
only  for  the  Herodias  matter,  but  also  "  for 
all  the  evils  which  Herod  had  done  "  (iii.  19). 
But  there  is  no  conflict  or  inconsistency  in 
these  different  accounts ;  every  word  of 
every  one  may  well  be  true. 

Healing  the  Leper. 

So  in  the  healing  of  the  leper,  Matthew 
says  (viii.  2),  "  Behold,  there  came  a  leper 
and  worshipped  him  saying,  Lord,  if  thou 
wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean."  Mark 
adds  something  different  (i.  40) :  "And 
there  came  a  leper  to  him,  beseeching  him, 
and  kneeling  down  to  him,  and  saying  unto 
him.  If  thou  wilt,"  etc.  This  additional 
fact  of  kneeling  Matthew  does  not  record. 
Luke   (v.    12)    mentions   still  another  fea- 


VARIATIONS   IN   THE   GOSPELS     35 

ture,  viz.,  "The  leper  fell  on  his  face, 
and  besought  him,  saying,  Lord,  if  thou 
wilt,"etc.  These  variations  are  only  succes- 
sive strokes  on  one  and  the  same  picture. 

The  Inscriptio7i  on  the  Cross. 

The  inscription  on  the  cross  furnishes 
one  more,  and  one  of  the  best  illustrations 
of  unity  in  variety  to  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament.  Mark  (xv.  26)  says  it  read, 
♦'  The  King  of  the  Jews."  Luke  (xxiii.  38), 
"  This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews."  Matthew 
(xxvii.  37),  "  This  is  Jesus  the  King  of  the 
Jews."  John  (xix.  19),  "Jesus  of  Nazareth 
the  King  of  the  Jews."  Was  there  no 
cross  on  Calvary  because  of  these  varia- 
tions, written  as  they  were  in  Hebrew, 
Greek,  and  Latin  (Luke  xxiii.  38) .? 

Is  the  story  of  Barabbas  a  myth,  merely 
because  one  evangelist  (John)  says  he  was 
a  robber,  and  two  others  (Mark  and  Luke), 
call  him  a  murderer  ?  Was  there  no  king 
of  Tyre  because  in  some  places  his  name 
is   spelled    Hiram  and    in  others  Huram } 


36  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

Is  there  no  true  time  of  day,  because  all 
the  clocks  in  your  house  strike  at  a  differ- 
ent moment  ? 

These  many  variations  lead  to  another 
suggestion.  If  these  are  forged  tales,  they 
were  doubtless  written  by  the  same  person, 
or  by  four  different  persons.  How  im- 
probable that  the  same  person  should  take 
the  unnecessary  trouble  to  make  up  four 
false  stories  about  Jesus,  in  order  to  impose 
on  the  world,  and  at  the  same  time  make 
them  so  different  from  each  other  as  to 
excite  doubts  in  some  honest  and  well- 
disposed  minds,  even  to  this  day,  as  to  the 
truth  of  any  one  of  them  ! 

On  the  other  hand,  how  vastly  more 
improbable  that  four  different  persons,  at 
different  times  and  in  different  places, 
should  deliberately  sit  down  without  any 
apparent  motive  to  write  four  similar  fic- 
titious stories  without  any  knowledge  of 
each  other's  work  ;  or,  if  they  had  such 
knowledge,  that  they  did  not  make  their 
stories  agree  better  with  each  other!     It 


VARIATIONS    IN   THE   GOSPELS      37 

is  too  absurd  to  be  worthy  of  even  deny- 
ing. 

Here  again  we  may  learn  from  secular 
matters  that  the  actual  occurrence  of  some 
event  is  not  to  be  doubted  because  of  some 
discrepancy,  or  even  some  contradiction,  in 
details  between  the  different  narrators 
thereof.  For  instance,  some  historians  as- 
sert that  Lord  Stafford  was  condemned  to 
be  hanged  for  his  alleged  participation  in 
the  popish  plot  in  1680,  while  Burnett  and 
other  historians  narrate  that  he  was  be- 
headed. But  that  he  suffered  death  for  the 
charge,  though  probably  unjustly,  no  one 
doubts. 

So  in  our  own  times  there  has  been  for 
more  than  a  century  a  controversy  as  to 
the  person  who  made  the  public  proclama- 
tion of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
from  the  balcony  of  the  old  State  House  in 
Boston,  on  the  morning  of  July  18,  1776. 
Many  accounts  assert  that  this  proclama- 
tion was  made  by  William  Greenleaf,  the 
high   sheriff   of  Suffolk  County ;  while  as 


38  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

many  more  declare  that  it  was  by  Colonel 
Thomas  Crafts.  But  recent  researches 
disclose  the  fact  that  Mr.  Greenleaf,  having 
a  weak  voice,  first  read  the  Declaration, 
sentence  by  sentence,  to  Colonel  Crafts, 
who  stood  by  his  side,  and  then  the  latter, 
in  his  loud  and  sonorous  tones,  repeated  the 
same  to  the  assembled  multitude  below; 
and  thus  the  seeming  conflict  is  easily  and 
naturally  reconciled. 


IV.     INCONSISTENCIES     IN    THE 
GOSPELS 

ET  us  now  look  at  some  of  the 
I  alleged  inconsistencies  in  the 
Gospel  stories ;  in  reconciling 
differences,  let  not  the  children 
of  this  world  be  wiser  than  the  children  of 
light. 

The  Healing  of  the  Two  Demoniacs. 

Mark  (v.  2)  and  Luke  (viii.  27)  say  that  a 
man  with  an  unclean  spirit  coming  out  of 
the  tombs  besought  Jesus  to  cure  him.  But 
does  it  follow  that  Matthew  was  false,  be- 
cause he  says  (viii.  28)  two  m.en  met  him  }  If 
there  were  two  there  certainly  was  one,  and 
if  there  was  one  it  does  not  prove  that  there 
were  not  two.  But,  as  has  been  well  said, 
there  is  an  obvious  reason  why  Mark  and 
Luke   mention    only    one.      What    is   it .? 


40  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

There  was  only  one  who  showed  any  grati- 
tude for  his  deliverance,  and  his  case  there- 
fore impressed  itself  the  more  on  their 
minds  since  the  duty  of  gratitude  for  bless- 
ings received  was  the  special  lesson  they 
were  seeking  to  inculcate. 

And  this  expulsion  of  the  devils  and 
sending  them  into  a  herd  of  swine  suggests 
another  proof  of  reality  and  indirect  con- 
firmation. "  There  was,"  say  the  evangel- 
ists, "  nigh  to  the  city  of  Gadara,  a  herd  of 
swine  feeding."  How  could  that  be  ?  The 
Jews  were  forbidden  to  eat  swine's  flesh. 
It  was  such  an  abomination  to  the  Jews 
that  one  of  them  declared  that  he  would 
die  rather  than  eat  it.  How  happened  it 
that  such  animals  were  being  raised  about 
the  city  of  Gadara,  and  great  herds  of  them, 
too  }  Turn  to  Josephus,  and  we  read  that 
Gadara  was  a  Grecian,  not  a  Jewish  city, 
and  the  Greeks  had  no  aversion  to  swine's 
flesh. 


INCONSISTENCIES  41 

The  Alabaster  Box  of  Ointment. 
Again,  because  Matthew  and  Mark  say 
that  the  woman  with  an  alabaster  box  of 
ointment  poured  it  07t  the  head  of  Jesus, 
was  John  a  falsifier  when  he  says  she  an- 
ointed his  feet,  and  wiped  them  with  the 
hair  of  her  head  ?  Or  because  John  men- 
tions only  Mary  Magdalene  as  coming  to 
the  sepulchre  on  the  morning  of  the  resur- 
rection, does  it  follow  that  the  other  evan- 
gelists are  not  to  be  believed  because  they 
state  that  other  women  accompanied  her  ? 
Nay,  John  himself,  although  he  gives  the 
name  of  only  one,  indirectly  confirms  the 
others  in  their  statement  that  more  per- 
sons were  present  than  Mary,  for  he  says 
(xx.  2)  that  Mary,  running  to  meet  Peter, 
exclaimed,  "They  have  taken  away  the 
Lord  out  of  the  sepulchre,  and  we,"  using 
the  plural,  "  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
him." 


42  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

Another  difference  in  the  story  about  the 
sermon  on  the  mount  seems  to  trouble  some 
minds  wonderfully.  Matthew  (v.  i,  2,  3) 
says,  "  And  seeing  the  multitudes,  he  went 
up  into  a  mountain  :  and  when  he  was  set, 
his  disciples  came  unto  him ;  and  he 
opened  his  mouth  and  taught  them,  saying, 
Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,"  etc. 

On  the  other  hand,  Luke  says  (vi.  17)  he 
^^  stood  in  the  plain^'  —  or  "  a  level  place," 
as  the  new  version  has  it,  —  and  lifted  up 
his  eyes,  and  said :  "  Blessed  be  ye  poor," 
etc.  One  says  he  was  standing  ;  the  other 
that  he  was  sitting.  How  is  this .-'  Re- 
member this  is  the  longest  discourse  Jesus 
ever  delivered,  probably  not  wholly  reported 
either,  and  if  he  became  tired  of  standing 
before  his  sermon  was  finished,  why 
should  he  not  sit  down  .-*  He  was  human 
like  the  rest  of  us,  except  without  sin.  But 
one  says  he  went  up  the  mountain ;  an- 
other that  he  stood  on  a  level  place.     How 


INCONSISTENCIES  43 

could  that  be  ?  Did  you  never  partly  as- 
cend a  mountain  and  find  a  plateau,  table- 
land, or  level  place  on  its  sides  or  between 
its  depths,  where  many  people  could  easily 
be  assembled  ?  Is  not  that  exactly  the  way 
it  probably  happened  ?  Luke  agrees  with 
Matthew  (see  vi.  12),  that  before  he  com- 
menced his  sermon  Jesus  went  up  into  the 
mountain  to  pray,  and  then  he  adds,  in  verse 
17,  that  he  came  down  and  stood  in  a 
level  place,  where  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and 
said,  "Blessed  are  the  poor,"  etc.  I  do  not 
overlook  the  fact  that  tradition  still  points 
out  just  such  a  "  level  place  "  between  two 
peaks  called  the  "  Horns  of  Hattin,"  on  the 
road  from  Tiberias  to  Capernaum,  as  the 
very  spot  where  the  sermon  was  delivered, 
but  I  am  suggesting  that  the  combined 
Gospel  stories  point  to  exactly  the  same 
conclusion. 

Miracle  of  the  Loaves  and  Fishes. 

Then  came  the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and 
fishes  at  Bethsaida.    This  miracle  furnishes 


44  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

a  striking  proof  of  the  harmony  and  con- 
sistency of  the  Gospels,  while  using  lan- 
guage apparently  inconsistent.  Thus  Luke 
says  (ix.  14)  that  the  multitude  sat  down, 
in  companies  of  about  fifty  each,  whereas 
another  asserts  that  they  sat  down  "by 
hundreds."  How  so  ?  This  is  another  of 
the  much  vaunted  inconsistencies  of  the 
Bible.  How  could  these  two  expressions 
be  true  ?  Easily  enough.  If  they  sat  one 
hundred  in  the  front  row  and  fifty  rows 
deep,  would  there  be  any  contradiction  in 
the  two  statements  ?  Would  that  not  be 
a  literal  compliance  with  the  words  of 
Mark  (vi.  40),  viz. :  "  They  sat  down  in 
ranks,  by  hundreds,  and  by  fifties."  How 
many  would  that  be  ?  Fifty  times  one 
hundred  is  five  thousand ;  and  therefore 
John,  without  saying  anything  of  the  man- 
ner of  their  arrangement  or  the  order  of 
their  seats,  simply  says  (vi.  10):  "So  the 
men  sat  down,  in  number  about  five  thou- 
sand." Each  writer  uses  different  words, 
but  all  the  statements  harmonize  and  blend 
in  one  consistent  whole. 


INCONSISTENCIES  45 

But  we  are  not  quite  through  with  this 
interesting  story.  One  evangelist  informs 
us  that  the  next  day  after  feeding  the  five 
thousand  some  of  the  people  of  Bethsaida, 
which,  as  you  know,  is  northeast  of  the  Sea 
of  Galilee,  took  shipping  and  came  over  to 
Capernaum  on  the  west  side ;  and  when 
they  found  Jesus  over  there,  they  said, 
"  Rabbi,  when  earnest  thou  hither  ? "  (John 
vi,  25).  Why  did  they  put  that  particular 
question  to  Jesus  ?  Was  it  mere  idle  curi- 
osity, or  was  there  some  special  reason  for 
their  surprise  and  wonder  at  finding  Jesus 
in  Capernaum  so  early  the  next  morning  ? 
Let  us  see.  Elsewhere  we  learn  that  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  day  of  the  miracle,  the  dis- 
ciples took  the  only  boat  there  was  at  Beth- 
saida to  cross  the  lake  to  Capernaum,  and 
Jesus  was  not  with  them,  for  he  had  gone 
apart  into  a  mountain  to  pray.  As  there 
was  no  other  boat  left  at  Bethsaida,  the  peo- 
ple who  thus  addressed  Jesus  naturally  won- 
dered how  he  could  have  crossed  that  night 
so  as  to  be  in  Capernaum  early  the  next 


46  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

morning.  Turn  to  Matthew  and  you  will 
find  how  it  happened  (xiv,  25).  He  tells  us 
that  in  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night  Jesus 
joined  his  disciples  on  their  way  over  to 
Capernaum,  "  walking  tip  on  the  sea."  And 
this  was  in  the  very  darkest  hours  of  the 
night ;  the  people  in  Bethsaida  had  no  know- 
ledge of  Jesus's  departure,  and  supposing 
he  was  still  in  the  mountain  on  the  east  side 
behind  Bethsaida,  where  his  disciples  had 
left  him  the  night  before,  they  might  well 
be  surprised  at  finding  him  so  early  the 
next  morning  over  in  Capernaum,  on  the 
west  side  of  the  sea,  and  therefore  natu- 
rally exclaimed  when  they  met  him,  "  Why, 
Master,  how  in  the  world  did  you  get  over 
here  this  morning  ?  *' 

But  still  another  interesting  question 
arises :  If  the  disciples  had  taken  the  only 
boat  there  was  at  Bethsaida  on  the  evening 
of  the  miracle,  how  could  the  other  people 
of  Bethsaida,  who  addressed  Jesus  thus, 
have  themselves  gotten  over  to  Capernaum 
the  next  morning  ?    Did  some  boats  arrive 


INCONSISTENCIES  47 

at  Bethsaida  during  the  night  ?  That  was 
an  awful  night  on  GaHlee.  And  in  Mat- 
thew (xiv.  24)  we  learn  that  the  disciples  on 
their  way  from  Bethsaida  to  Capernaum 
had  a  fearful  time,  "and  their  ship  was 
tossed  with  the  waves,  for  the  wind  was 
conti-ary."  If  the  wind  was  contrary  to  the 
disciples,  going  westward  from  Bethsaida  to 
Capernaum,  it  must  have  been  favorable 
to  other  persons  bound  eastward  to  Beth- 
saida from  the  west  side  of  the  lake,  and 
so  it  might  have  carried  boats  towards 
Bethsaida  that  night.  But  neither  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  nor  Luke  mentions  any  such 
circumstance.  Turn  now  to  John  (vi.  23), 
where  he  says,  "  Howbeit  there  came  other 
boats  from  Tiberias  [which,  like  Capernaum, 
was  on  the  west  side  of  Galilee,]  nigh  unto 
the  place  where  they  did  eat  bread,  after 
that  the  Lord  had  given  thanks."  And  so 
a  wind  which  to  the  disciples  going  south- 
west from  Bethsaida  to  Capernaum  would 
be  "  contrary,"  was  exactly  a  wind  to  carry 
other  ships  that  night  from  Tiberias  north- 


48  THE  FOUR  GOSPELS 

eastward  to  Bethsaida ;  and  that  is  how 
these  citizens  of  Bethsaida  might  have  got- 
ten over  to  Capernaum  that  morning. 

What  adroit  forgers  these  evangelists 
were ;  the  one  to  narrate  facts  which  would 
not  easily  have  happened  unless  some  boats 
had  arrived  at  Bethsaida  that  night,  but 
without  saying  so ;  the  other  to  have  inci- 
dentally mentioned  such  arrival  in  his  ac- 
count of  the  transaction.  I  do  not  positively 
say  that  the  people  at  Bethsaida  did  cross 
the  lake  by  boat  to  Capernaum,  for  they 
might  have  gone  by  land  around  the  end  of 
the  lake,  as  it  is  not  over  ten  miles;  but 
I  simply  say  that  the  facts  stated  in  the 
several  evangelists  all  harmonize  with  that 
view,  although  the  story  of  no  one  alone 
brings  it  all  out. 

The  Healing  the  Centtirions  Servant. 

Luke  informs  us  (vii.  3)  that  when  the 
centurion  heard  of  Jesus,  "  he  sent  unto  hint 
the  elders  of  the  Jews,  beseeching  him  that 
he  would  come  and  heal  his  servant."     On 


INCONSISTENCIES  49 

the  other  hand,  Matthew  as  positively  de- 
clares that  the  centurion  wciit  himself  unto 
Jesus,  beseeching  him  (viii.  5).  Some  crit- 
ics seem  to  think  these  two  statements  in- 
consistent. But  are  the  two  accounts  so 
utterly  irreconcilable  ?  Let  us  see.  Would 
it  be  impossible  or  unnatural  that  the  cen- 
turion should  first  send  the  elders  to  Jesus, 
as  Luke  says  he  did,  and  after  they  had 
been  gone  for  some  time,  becoming  anxious 
and  impatient  at  their  long  delay,  that  he 
should  set  out  himself  to  plead  in  person 
with  Jesus,  —  for  this  servant  was  "very 
dear  unto  him,"  —  and  so  meet  Jesus  and 
the  elders  on  their  way  back,  as  Matthew 
intimates  he  did.  If  this  were  all  the 
discrepancy  between  the  two  accounts,  it 
might  be  readily  explained.  But  unfortu- 
nately, it  is  not,  for  Luke  again,  in  verse  6, 
repeats  the  assertion  that  as  Jesus  was  re- 
turning with  the  elders,  the  centurion  sejit 
friends  to  him,  saying,  "  Lord,  trouble  not 
thyself,"  etc.  But  the  Greek  word  used  in 
this  part  of  the  story,  and  translated  "  sent," 


50  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

is  €7rc/Ai/rcv,  not  the  same  word  translated 
"  sent "  in  verse  3,  where  he  speaks  of 
sending  the  elders.  That  word  is  (nri- 
(TTeiXev,  from  dTTocTTeAXw,  which  always  means 
to  dispatch,  to  send  off,  etc.  But  this  word 
eVe/Ai/^ev,  used  in  the  6th  verse,  means  not 
only  to  send,  but  also,  according  to  approved 
lexicons,  "to  lead,  to  escort,  conduct,  pro- 
ceed with,"  and  is  used  in  that  sense  by 
Homer  and  other  writers.  If  Luke  intended 
to  convey  the  same  meaning  in  the  second 
place  as  in  the  first,  why  did  he  use  a  differ- 
ent word  ?  Therefore  the  centurion  might 
himself  be  conducting  or  proceeding  with 
his  friends,  and  so  all  meet  Jesus  returning 
with  the  elders.  Indeed,  the  language  that 
Luke  puts  into  the  centurion's  mouth  nat- 
urally imports  that  the  latter  was  personally 
present  with  his  friends,  as  they  met  Jesus  ; 
for  the  centurion  said,  "  Lord,  trouble  not 
thyself,  for  /  am  not  worthy  that  thou 
shouldst  enter  under  my  roof.  Wherefore 
neither  thought  I  myself  worthy  to  come  to 
thee  :  but  say  the  word  only,  and  my  ser- 


INCONSISTENCIES  51 

vant  shall  be  healed."  Was  not  the  man 
who  spake  these  words  standing  face  to  face 
with  Jesus  ?  If  so,  it  is  true  that  the  cen- 
turion first  sent  elders  to  Jesus,  as  Luke 
narrates  in  verse  3  ;  it  is  true  that  in  the 
second  place  he  did  go  himself,  as  Mat- 
thew records ;  it  is  true  that  when  he  went 
himself,  he  was  accompanied  by  his  friends, 
as  Luke  asserts  in  verse  6,  and  there  is 
now  no  contradiction,  but  all  is  in  perfect 
harmony. 

The  Case  of  Bartimeus. 

As  to  the  healing  of  Bartimeus,  at  Jericho, 
a  formidable  discrepancy  is  thought  to  exist ; 
viz.,  Matthew  (xx.  29,  30)  and  Mark  (x.  46) 
speak  of  it  as  happening  when  Jesus  was  de- 
parting from  Jericho,  while  Luke  (xviii.  35) 
says,  "It  came  to  pass  as  he  was  come 
nigh  unto  Jericho,"  etc.  This  is  sometimes 
thought  to  be  a  serious  contradiction.  Some 
think  it  a  very  serious  one,  and  their  hearts 
quake  with  misgivings.  But  look  again.  Is 
this  a  variation,  except  in  a  comparatively 


52  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

unimportant  particular,  a  mere  fringe  of  the 
garment  ?  Let  us  look  at  the  miracle  in  the 
perspective.  The  important  fact,  the  most 
important  fact  is,  did  it  take  place  at  all,  or 
was  it  a  mere  invention  ?  Three  witnesses 
declare  it  did,  and  no  one  says  it  did  not. 
All  agree  it  was  near  Jericho.  All  agree  it 
was  in  the  presence  of  a  great  multitude  ; 
all  agree  that  the  party  healed,  be  they  one 
or  two,  sat  by  the  wayside  begging.  All 
agree  in  all  the  other  essential  particulars 
of  the  miracle.  They  differ  in  only  one  un- 
important point.  Is  the  main  story,  then, 
true  or  false  ?  Did  they  all  three  fabricate 
the  tale,  for  you  must  convict  all  three  of 
false  testimony  to  prove  it  untrue  ?  Did 
they  copy  from  each  other  .^  Why,  then, 
did  they  not  copy  alike  ?  If  three  witnesses 
should  testify  in  court  to  seeing  a  crime 
committed,  and  all  three  gave  the  same 
particulars,  but  two  said  it  occurred  in  the 
forenoon  and  one  in  the  afternoon,  or  one 
said  it  was  on  the  north  side  of  the  road 
and  another  on  the  south,  would  that  invali- 


INCONSISTENCIES  53 

date  their  testimony  ?  The  Bible  stories, 
like  other  narratives,  must  be  looked  at  in 
the  perspective.  If  three  witnesses  in  court 
agree  in  four  particulars  of  the  same  trans- 
action, and  differ  in  only  one,  where  is  the 
preponderance  of  the  testimony,  —  that  they 
were  all  lying,  or  that  one  of  them  is  mis- 
taken ?  This  and  other  differences  in  the 
Scriptures  may  militate  against  the  doctrine 
of  exact  verbal  inspiration  ;  but  that  is  not 
what  we  are  endeavoring  to  maintain,  but 
simply  that  the  variance  does  not,  from 
a  legal  standpoint,  overthrow  the  positive 
testimony  of  the  three  evangelists  that  the 
event  actually  occurred. 

The  Two  TJiieves. 

The  different  stories  about  the  two 
thieves  upon  the  cross  furnish  a  very 
gratifying  theme  for  criticism  to  some  ene- 
mies of  the  Bible.  You  remember  that  two 
evangelists  say  that  they  who  were  crucified 
with  Jesus  reviled  him,  and  cast  the  same 
in  his  teeth.     But  Luke  tells  us  that  one  of 


54  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

them  said,  "  This  man  hath  done  nothing 
amiss."  Are  those  two  accounts  both 
false  ? 

Would  it  be  unnatural  or  impossible  that 
both  malefactors  should  have  at  first  joined 
with  the  insulting  crowd,  and  afterwards 
that  the  more  tender-hearted  of  the  two 
should  have  repented  in  the  agony  of  ap- 
proaching death,  and  exclaimed,  "  Lord,  re- 
member me  when  thou  comest  into  thy 
kingdom  "  ? 

Nay,  in  our  modern  criminal  courts,  how 
often  does  it  happen  that  when  two  are 
arrested  for  some  offense,  they  both  deny 
it  for  a  while  to  the  officer,  and  yet  after- 
wards one  turns  state's  evidence,  and  con- 
victs both  of  the  offense. 

How  many  a  mother  has  called  her  two 
young  children  to  her  side  for  some  disobe- 
dience of  her  command,  and  although  both 
at  first  deny  it,  yet  moved  by  her  tender 
appeals  the  more  conscientious  of  the  two 
at  last  breaks  down,  and,  choking  with 
sobs,  confesses  the  whole  transaction. 


INCONSISTENCIES  55 

Do  not,  therefore,  I  pray  you,  give  up 
your  Bible,  your  religion,  or  your  God  be- 
cause of  such  flippant  talk  about  the  con- 
tradictions of  the  Gospels,  come  from  whom 
it  may ! 

Thus,  by  undesigned  coincidences,  by  in- 
direct confirmations,  by  unexpected  corro- 
borations, by  natural  and  for  the  most  part 
easily  reconcilable  differences,  scattered 
throughout  these  four  histories,  may  we  be 
abundantly  satisfied  of  the  truth  and  har- 
mony of  the  Gospels.  The  variations  in 
these  stories  do  not  detract  from  their  reli- 
ability, but  rather  the  opposite.  What 
would  be  our  opinion  of  a  man  who  denied 
the  real  existence  of  another  merely  because 
four  photographs  of  him,  one  a  front  and 
one  a  back  view,  and  two  others  of  opposite 
sides  of  his  face,  did  not  present  the  same 
features  ?  Is  it  not  from  the  four  views 
combined  that  you  get  the  fullest  and  truest 
idea  of  the  person  portrayed  ?  So  from  the 
combined  pictures  of  the  acts  and  doings  of 
our  Lord,  in  the  four  Gospels,  or  rather  this 


56  THE   FOUR   GOSPELS 

fourfold  Gospel,  do  we  best  comprehend  the 
fullness  of  his  life  and  power.  What  won- 
der, then,  that  Rousseau  felt  compelled  to 
declare  that  if  the  Gospels  were  an  inven- 
tion, the  inventor  was  greater  than  the 
hero,  or  a  still  later  than  Rousseau  to  assert 
that  the  forger  of  such  a  Jesus  must  have 
been  superior  to  Jesus  himself. 

Cojichision. 

This  would  be  our  conclusion  if  we  were 
judging  of  the  Gospel  story  simply  by  the 
light  of  intellect  and  of  reason,  and  were 
endowed  with  no  nobler  and  higher  facul- 
ties ;  but  there  is  a  spiritual  power  within 
us,  which  makes  the  same  answer ;  a  faith 
which  is  higher  than  mere  belief,  as  spirit 
is  higher  than  mind,  or  mind  higher  than 
body.  There  is  a  part  of  us  transcending 
the  intellect,  a  part  more  deep,  more  bound- 
less, and  more  sublime,  than  that  of  the 
mind  ;  a  part  which  "  no  fowl  knoweth  and 
which  the  vulture's  eye  hath  not  seen ;  "  a 
part  by  which  we  may  claim  kinship  with 


INCONSISTENCIES  57 

the  cherubim  and  the  seraphim ;  that  part 
which  enables  us  to  see  with  the  eye  of  a 
spiritual  vision,  and  discern  with  a  celestial 
insight ;  that  faith  which  is  "  the  substance 
of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things 
not  seen ; "  which  enables  young  men  to 
"  mount  up  with  wings  as  eagles,  to  run  and 
not  be  weary,  to  walk  and  not  faint ;  "  a 
faith  which  inspired  the  celebrated  Congre- 
gational divine.  Dr.  Palmer,  to  pen  that 
devout  hymn,  so  full  of  trust,  love,  and 
confidence,  — 

"  My  faith  looks  up  to  Thee, 
Thou  Lamb  of  Calvary." 

Let  not,  therefore,  the  criticism  of  the 
skeptic,  the  jeers  of  the  scoffer,  or  the 
doubts  of  the  agnostic  disturb  our  calm 
confidence  in  the  actual  existence,  the 
splendid  example,  and  the  divine  attributes 
of  him  whose  earthly  life,  miracles,  and 
teachings  are  thus  described  in  the  four 
Gospels. 

Nay,  let  us  rather,  with  that  abiding  con- 
viction derived  from  reason,  faith,  and  love 


58  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS 

combined,  confidently  proclaim  with  the  in- 
spired apostle,  "I  know  in  whom  I  have 
believed ; "  or  with  that  perfect  and  upright 
man  of  old,  '^  I  know,  I  know,  that  my  Re- 
deemer liveth."     Yes,  yes, — 

"  Jesus  lives,  I  know  full  well, 
Naught  from  Him  my  heart  can  sever ; 
Life,  nor  death,  nor  powers  of  Hell, 
Shall  keep  me  from  His  side  forever." 

Amen, 


BLECTROTYPED  AND  PRINTED 
BY   H.   O.    HOUGHTON   AND  CO. 


CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  U.  S.  A. 


DATE  DUE 

„ 

m 

—*" ' 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S   A. 

BS2555.8.B47 

The  four  gospels  from  a  lawyer's 

Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00013  5113 


